Talk:Fanon
Erm…George Weasley did eventually marry Angelina Johnson! Maybe this example should use Fred instead, or perhaps Percy and Penelope Clearwater? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :The simple answer is that it was written long before the George/Angelina was canonised, and was not changed. I'll amend it to avoid confusion. - [[User:Cavalier One|'Cavalier One']](''Wizarding Wireless Network'') 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Direct "Fanfiction" to this page? Shouldn't "fanfiction" be directed to this page - because fanon is another word for fanfiction? Thanks, --SeverusLovedLily 20:10, October 11, 2009 (UTC) :No, because it is perfectly possible for fan-fiction to be "canon compliant" and involve no "fanon" whatsoever. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:59, October 11, 2009 (UTC) Sure it is possible, but accidentally so. Fan-Fic or fan fiction, is a fictionalized story based on characters from the book and are, by definition, fiction. Fanon is fictionalized information created by fans which is later mistaken for fact - an example, according to one talk page, would be Luna's middle name, which needed to be removed from an entry because it turned out to be fanon rather than canon. (Vaudree (talk) 07:21, November 11, 2015 (UTC)) Fanon versus Theory While there is some overlap, maybe a distinction needs to be made between Fanon and Theory in the article - between fabrication and prediction. The Charlus Potter red herring example was not something that came from fan fic, but something that came from trying to put together the clues from canon and guessing wrong (or right). Theories are an attempt to predict based on the clue available. Fanon, on the other hand, is how you want it to be with little or no reference to actual clues - fanon, usually contains an element of fan-fic or fantasy. Fan fics tend to employ Mary-Sues because the (usually young) writer is associating with the character a certain amount and making the character how they themselves want to be. Came across the term Ginny-Sue - an offshoot of Mary-Sue, which denotes either how Ginny comes off in fanon, or, in some cases, how she seems to all of a sudden seemed to get so good at everything in OOTP and the beginning of HBP. However, if you look at it from the point of view of theory, Ginny's skill and knowledge of magic was hinted at in earlier books - though it is disguised a bit since, for example, Ginny is only compared with Hermione in knowing that Hagrid used an engorgement spell on the pumpkins in COS - someone who is not only in a different year but top of her class - so it doesn't seem so specially because Hermione does it. That even holding her own with older students who have been attending Hogwarts longer, shows exceptional skill. In that case, the clues of future greatness would be the absence of any mention of her not doing as well as Harry, Ron and Hermione skill-wise or an objective look at what she dealt with via Tom Riddle - that she was able to break free of his hold. The other term that needs to be made distinct from Fanon and Theory are Ghost Plots - which, were plots taken out of the books, often because they were deemed to be too peripheral to the main story. JKR said that when she said something in an interview that did not match the book, it was due to a ghost plot. Ghost Plots offer a whole new venue for Theory and Fanon but for different reasons - it gives Fanon an alternate universe to fantasize about and theorists debates over whether some earlier clue was truly a red herring or the remnant of a removed Ghost Plot. (Vaudree (talk) 07:09, November 11, 2015 (UTC))